June 23, 2002
People's clean elections vote disregarded
The decision of the Court of Appeals to strike down the Clean Elections law was wrong and motivated by special interests. All the court did was give us the best free speech money can buy.
Freedom of speech is not at issue here. Anyone can speak. But if no one can hear because the voice lacks the fundraising to give it volume, then I can hear only a limited range of messages. And that denies me a true choice in who to vote for.
If anything, the free speech and freedom of choice problems are reversed � I can only choose between the most qualified of successful fundraisers, not the most qualified candidate.
Public financing of elections will allow us to hear a full range of available candidates who can devote their campaign time to the issues and the job they are elected to do, rather than to fundraising. If the Republican element which opposes this voter-approved measure really believes they have a better grasp of the issues, and are better for Arizona, than the meager competition, they would not be afraid of this.
But they are, which makes us believe they expect to lose elections because of this law unless it is stopped.
I have no objection to people making lots of money, or to their spending it on whatever they choose � except elected officials. I don�t want anyone buying my government for me.
If we truly believe in a Democratic society � a meritocratic one � we will have publicly-financed elections. We voted it in as an option, and were overruled by our own elected officials � legislative and judicial � who are afraid they can�t get elected on their merits.
This very act demonstrates on its face that they do lack merit, and should be voted out at the upcoming election. If anyone is left to run against them.